On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 13:04 -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 09:49 -0600, Bob Pendleton wrote:
>> > I have seen a lot of postings recently where people new to the list seem
> > to be demanding that SDL be changed one way or another, but I haven't
> > seen much in the way of contributions from those same people. OTOH,
> > there are new people who contribute every day. They also complain, but
> > nobody minds that because their complaints are constructive and often
> > end in patches.
>> Here's a deal for you:
>> You tolerate my SDL complaints, and I'll tolerate your complaints
> about Tux Paint and procps. To each their own project, OK?
> We don't advance too fast if we all hack on all projects. It is
> better to specialize.
What makes you think that was directed at you?
To paraphrase an old saw, if the shoe does not fit, do not wear it.
Bob Pendleton
>> The next time a complainer bothers you, please remember that he
> may be working on several projects that you and your family will
> greatly enjoy and/or need.
>> > There also seems to be a number of people who expect SDL to be
> > completely up to date with the absolutely newest hardware and software
> > with out making any consideration of the cost in both time and hardware
> > needed to update SDL. To develop and test for 64 bit CPUs requires
> > owning one.
>> I don't know about the sound cards and video cards, but most
> CPU-related stuff is easy.
>> I do not have a 64-bit CPU or even a little-endian one. In spite of
> this, I do a pretty good job of supporting all Linux architectures
> with the procps project. The only portability error in recent memory
> was (ssize_t*) vs. (int*) in a function prototype, and that's only
> because I didn't bother to compile on a 64-bit box at SourceForge.
> If I had done so, gcc would have provided a warning. I also use a
> regression test collection to ensure that things are working well.
>> Hardware surfaces excluded, the same should be true for SDL.
>>>> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
>SDL at libsdl.org>http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl>